[Music] and welcome to facts or frauds your honor city of tayor right and for the defense good morning your honor attorney Josh Hadley uh uh I have appointed Counsel on behalf of the defendant Mr Eric Martin um briefly your honor I'd like to make a record um we were before this court last week and there was a motion um a pro prosay motion filed by Mr Martin um to have me replaced as Council I was never served to copy that your court graciously did send a copy I have had a chance to review it um your honor I would just again state that if Mr Martin and I um have a fundamental disagreement as trial strategy um pursuant to people V Charles O Williams 386 Mish 565 1972 good cause exists um for a substitution of council um if there's a difference of opinion between the defendant and the appointed counsel with regard to a fundamental trial C tactic as well as um going to people debass 88 Mish app 793 1979 good cause can also be found when there's destruction communication and breakdown now my recollection your honor your basis um last time ding the motion was really how late the game the motion was it was going to be prejudicial um essentially and disruptive with the judicial process that's correct if I recall correctly one of the other concerns we addressed was the concept of um Mr Martin's belief which I think we've now clarified that I'm not restricting him from speaking in any way shape or form today no very well your honor I would also like I believe again I don't want to put words into this Court's mouth my understanding is my role today as if Mr Martin wants to advance the defense that he has selected I'm here to Aid him with the understanding of the Michigan court rules the Michigan Rules of Evidence and all federal and state applicable law that's correct very good your honor okay because of that again I think I just for Mr Martin and my and this court and the people to be on the same page for these reasons I will not be making an opening statement or uh I would Reserve an opportunity for a closing argument and um I I will say this I'm going to go ahead and give the ground rules to Mr Martin so he understands Mr Martin you are lead counsel you are your own lead counsel and you choose to be representing yourself is that correct the present myself not represent I am myself listen I'm gonna tell you this right now I'm gonna say it one time I'm not going to sit here and split hairs on meanings of words to represent oneself or present oneself means the same thing you are speaking on your own behalf yes right right very good both of them mean the same thing so we're not going to play semantics because literally I'm a walking thesaurus so I'm not going to do that and I'm going to shut that down because you're just going to waste time I'm not here to stall and waste time I'm here to make sure you're due process and you have a fair trial and as part of that fair trial you're not going to try to disrupt the proceedings by either stalling uh saying playing some antiques with well it's present instead of represent it literally has present in it represent just means to redo it again that's all and so every time you it up you're just you're just representing yourself again you're representing is what it means that's what represent make Thea so anyway so here's the thing you're going to be the lead counsel so you're going to do your opening statement things like that you're going to follow the court rules you're going to follow the same rules of evidence that that everybody else fils um Mr GRE greo is not going to have any advantage over you you're not going to have any advantage over him if you have you literally have a legal encyclopedia sitting next to you someone who is very confident in the laws and the court rules and the statutes and the Rules of Evidence so if there's an objection or things like that I will pause I will pause so that if you think that there's an objection and you think that there is is something like that I'm also going to ask you because you have someone who is so astute at at trial practice if if you're co-counsel are you giving your co-counsel permission to say objection when he sees something objectionable that you don't recognize because I'm just saying you don't have a jurist doctorate you don't you haven't formally studied the rules of evidence in a formalized study you could have done so online or anywhere else by library or by book or whatever I don't know that you have or haven't but I don't want to presume but I I just want to know for for the flow of things because if someone says something they're going to keep asking questions unless somebody jumps in with an objection if you don't recognize the objection but he does are you giving him permission to assist you by saying hold up that that that was objectional yeah as long as he's going by the law and not doing nothing that's going to violate my well I I just want no I mean and I'm making sure that this is your protection he's there for your protection I'm asking this question because just from a flow of trial standpoint somebody who knows what's going on would be because I do it all the time sometimes sitting here like someone will ask a question and I kind of like I'm watching and I would have said objection if I was the other side and they don't object I don't even know if they didn't pay attention or they didn't know or I don't know I but I can't do that for you I have somebody I have somebody here who is who is very astute at that are you giving him the power I know you want to speak for yourself but there but this is the one situation where you have to you have to respond like right now you have to like block you have to like do something right and if you don't recognize it I want to make sure that you are giving him permission for him to do that is that is that okay how long do but also reserve my right to also make no sure I mean and I'll give you I'll Give All I'm saying is I'm going to have him call the timeout I'm going to have him till the time out Flag by saying objection then you two of you can talk about why it's an objection and then and then speak to the because if obviously you didn't see it or recognize it he did so there's probably a reason why because he's not just going to throw out the word objection for every little thing you're also not going to throw out the word objection for every little thing because if you don't if you say I'll give you I'll give you three if you come up with three frivolous objections in a row because you don't know the court rules then I'm going to turn the case over to him because he knows how to do it you understand what I'm saying I got no problem with you you and your closing argument your opening argument sure if you want to cross-examine a witness sure but it better be within the rules it better be as to the elements it better be asked to the case not anything and some other tangent about anything else it has to pertain to relevance because every single piece of evidence I'm just going to give you a quick update on the Rules of Evidence the first rule rule 401 is that all evidence must be relevant so if it has nothing to do with the elements of driving on a revoked license I don't want to hear it if it's anything to do with bias yes you can you can go into bias because that is one of the things that you can bring up under rule 403 but under rule 403 there's also overly repetitive evidence so if you're going to ask the same question 20 times just in 20 different ways you're going to get an objection and I'm going to sustain an objection you understand what I'm saying C okay very good that's all and I just want to make sure so that because everybody who's here who's going to be in a jury they have a right to serve as jurors and I'm not going to have them sit here for an extra hour just because you want to play semantics because now you're violating their rights perhaps by doing that but I want to make sure that you have full representation I want to make sure you have fullo process want to make sure you have access to an attorney and again I'm going to ask you are you knowingly and voluntarily choosing to not take house counsel you're going to represent yourself as lead counsel like I said um before just yes or no I mean you want are you representing yourself as lead counsel or knowingly inv volunteer I reserve my right to say what I want to say and help myself in the case but it's also okay for him you know also want him to do his duty and offer me the effective that's what I'm saying I don't want to leave him in a position where he doesn't know exactly what his duty is he's either the he's either lead counsel or he's just a helper who's just going to sit there unless you ask him a question he's not going to do anything that's that's what that's what I'm trying to ascertain exactly what it is you want from him officer Rose good morning sir I am well I'm always well okay well first well first remember slave you said yourself you said it was okay judge SL you said it was okay that I say what I want to say you say evasive so I don't see what the questions the questions start so so much for you the questions are basically because I want to define the parameters of what your co-counsel is going to be required to do because I'm not going to have a situation where you're like well he didn't say objection on this one time and he could have had an objection and now I'm going to sue him because you're basically asking me to appoint him sort of with one hand tied behind his back he's either going to be able to do his job into the fullest extent and represent you as a zealous advocate that he is or he's going to be an encyclopedia of legal knowledge sitting there only waiting for you to take the book off the shelf I did I did create that one situation where you could let him cart blanch if he thinks there's an objection say objection which will just basically be a timeout then you can group or pow out whatever you want to call it about what that objection would be and then we'll we'll proceed and I'll make my ruling on it but other than that he's not gonna jump in chime in any of that is that is that what you because you're because you're running the show on the on the representation correct well yes but I was want to say it's there's no I want to give up my right to effective sensus of council right that's what I'm saying either gonna accept it or you're waving it there's no half waving it you understand what I'm saying and I'm just and I'm just making sure what it is because I don't mind whichever way you choose based on what he just told me I you know I should say leave counsil based on not just because what he told me but but so based on well first hold on because I don't want you to say because I don't want to hear whatever private conversation you had between the two of you because I know you just said the words based on what he just said I didn't want you to say what because that's private no one can make no one can make anybody testify what you two talk about that's that's privileged if you say listen if you say to the court or if you say to anybody anything he said it removes and washes away all privilege to it okay so I'm just letting you know that so you so you understand so any conversations you have with councel even though he's not technically Council councel but he's your assistant councel any conversations you have are privileged so if you unless you say well he just told me this oh now he just through away so I'm just I'm just I'm just trying to lay these ground rules so that we don't run into this during the trial at any time so you that you understand and agree and I just want to make sure that you are knowingly and voluntarily choosing to represent yourself knowing that I would have given you full access to an attorney you're choosing not to take that access and you want to represent yourself that's correct I'm choosing to present myself but also I'm not waving my right to be helped by him because I still have the right and D so I so if he sees any objections he can do objections but other than that you'll just stop and ask him and like I said then okay we can't I ating I don't know what's going to happen you don't long as he don't say something violates my rights he does and I going to let that be know I'm OB to him whatever doing whatever now now we're back to now we're right back to right so you know what I'll just play it by ear and and if I think that you're doing anything at all that's contemptuous with just trying to stall U on this then I'll make my rulings at that point but let's I feel very comfortable with the understanding of the speaking objections just so I'm on the same page um everything um else I will serve in a co-counsel role until directed otherwise yep very good sir thank you very good all right so now as to the motion the uh I just so they can't hear I know if they can't hear I don't know it's not my [Music] problem all right so I see you um you follow a motion this morning and this motion is a motion in demand to dismiss or discharge this case based on equal protection Clause violations and I have read through your motion and uh did you give the your co-counsel the opportunity to read the motion just in case if you he asked you any questions or if you ask him any questions your honor I have had an opportunity to review um all of um the prade motions have been filed in this matter so yes I includ the one this morning uh we had chance to review it together yes sir just want to make sure in case you need to assist I guess I just add I have nothing to add sure all right so this is uh your motion Mr Martin Y and uh basically it states that you think that there's a conspiracy between the police department officer Borg Mr Greco and myself to prosecute you and keep you from getting your moped back basically not not just it it's no it's uh it's not completely uh totally current so okay so the prosecutor called herself supposedly Prosecuting me here on this case when I have uh sought to a prosecute Anthony Borg for taking stealing my mop which is Larson without my consent in violation declaration independence of 1776 along with my de process rights of ini Federal Constitution okay um he had it tow um immediately and uh like I said I I file actually state criminal charges myself with this court they haven't been acting on um Greco here has not made no effort to prosecute it and basically like I said so that violates my equal protection right you know if I'm being prosecuted I have the right to prosecute to when crimes being committed against me but that hasn't been respected in violation of my crime victim's right of the Michigan Constitution you know in addition to the due process um so yeah like I said so it's a it violates equal protection Clause violation not allowing me to prosecute also for the crimes committ against me therefore the case should be dismissed based on that Mr G yes very briefly RoR I just had an opportunity to look at it and this motion has no base this in fact law or logic Mr Martin is being prosecuted validly because he was operating a moped on the road with a revoked license and are no valid license the moped was uh taken by area to at the time because it cannot be side of the road and not left in his custody when he is refusing to acknowledge that he is supposed to have a license to operate a mo mopet on the road there is no basis to charge anyone else Criminal or conspiratorially in this matter so it should be denied respond that I'm sure okay well first of all state statutes cannot violate the constitution as we know in the Constitution clearly says that property is not to be deprived before a due process of law before a hearing that was as you as he just was talk about to immediately you know um without before hearing without any new process of law they did violate new process and uh and besides that based on my right to travel my right to own my private property supposed to take it anyways so the state even there a state statute that seems to allow it it's an unconstitutional State Statute and that doesn't override the Constitution again the Constitution says the properties not to be deprived right based on all the uh um testimony that I just heard and reasoning um plus after having read through the motion I am going to deny your motion there is no violation of equal protection under Michigan kapal law 257 252a um which is the abandoned vehicle statute anytime that there's a situation where a vehicle has to be abandoned obviously the driver of the vehicle was arrested for not having a driver's license that vehicle can't just sit on the side of the road because why well that's the city's job to protect that and it also becomes evidence of the the of what was um taking place so that has to be impounded pursuant to the abandoned vehicle statute additionally um the due process that you say you are not going to seek you actually will seek because it's built into Michigan compile law 257.904 B which states that when a person is convicted of an offense that's punishable by that section um the local ordinance basically for operating a motor vehicle while their license is either suspended revoked or denied the court shall order that the motor vehicle if it is owned in whole or in part by that person um and the court shall order that the vehicle be impounded for not less than a period that the court orders but not more than 120 days from the date of judgment but what happens in the meantime and in between time is an actual trial that we're about to have right now so that is the due process that the constitution affords because if it's found not guilty then your moped gets put back with to you there is no cost assessed to you the city will pay any cost for impoundment and fees why because you're found not guilty so the fact that you're stating that you're not getting due process well we're about to start the due process which is the trial so for those reasons your motion is deny now um put that in the file put here for reasons stated on the record now with regard to one other supplemental thing so the Civil infractions that are in here the no proof of insurance and defective tires those both stem from the same incident occurrence that's correct your honor and are we setting these for a formal hearing are we having these as a formal hearing now with regard to these as well um however the court wants to proceed I mean if we have a jury we got a jury I mean we jury doesn't do these right I mean you want to do you because what I'm saying is I have no problem if you're going to put in evidence and it's going to be the same witness and I got everybody here I will make a ruling on these after and outside of the the uh jury's decision making and vision so they're not going to see that they won't be influenced in any way by it as to well the judge said he's already responsible for those he's probably guilty they won't hear anything from that I'm just saying I'll make that a separate ruling on on this but we're going to have the formal hearing with regard to these because I think having a trial and this with is about as formal as you can get so but all the decisions and everything about these will be outside of the jury's presence because I don't want to taint the jury to think that you know oh well the judge said he's guilty of the other things so he's probably guilty of this they're not going to hear any of that just put it in your evidence and I'll make sure of it afterward okay fine that's we'll just address it during and Mr Martin um with regard to that you'll be able to cross-examine about anything like you know the tires they won't understand what has anything to do about anything because I'm not going to instruct them that they're even thinking about that I'm the one who make the decision on that because these aren't jury trial things it's just civil fractions so and and that way it's not going to they're not going to get into it about anything or hear anything about it really other than they're going to hear the evidence for everything I'm hearing I need to hear the evidence about this so if you have any cross-examination with regard to defective tires if you have any cross-examination with u proof of insurance you know I don't know maybe it was on your phone maybe it was in your pocket I don't know I don't know what I don't want to put it I'm just saying you can ask about all those things and make sure you're doing that because we are having the formal hearing on these as well so they won't understand that it has anything to do with their stuff I'll make that determination after they're gone so that way it doesn't change their their view point of view okay so we're clear you're onor okay very good so let's go ahead and any other supplemental M I think there was one outstanding motion that at our last um pre-trial hearing Mr Martin attempted to address the court I believe it was filed I I I see motion with an October 25th date um is this the same argument oer 25th your honor it's a motion TI um motion for demand to dismiss discharge these cases based on the attached legal arguments title of nobility I don't know if the people were served a copy of this prosay motion I did get a copy from your court staff um okay let me let me first real briefly my client to make sure he wants to move forward with this argument okay my apologies Ron he is ready to move forward with this argument all right so the other the only other outstanding motion and then the last time we were here I said on the day of the trial that will'll clear up any outstanding motions that had not been heard the only last motion and obviously you filed a new one this morning that you brought with you and we heard that we discussed that so you have this other motion for a motion for demand to dismiss and discharge these cases based on the attached legal arguments of title of nobility so um give me one second to because I don't know if it's did you have attachments to that I see you got your handwritten you got your hand well I was saying I have your loose leaf handwritten motion like I see on your normal motions but then I see like some pages that are um I don't know it says page 49 of 88 so I don't there's not 88 pages to your motion it was May should have cross some page that would have been a little more professional I guess but you know that's I'll tell you how many PES that should be here I'm not speaking to your professionalism I just want to make sure that I'm not missing the other 88 Pages that's all yeah that's page now eight I'm C eight here eight in addition to the motion of the actual legal argum you I mean okay so I got four pages of I got four photocopies pages and then two handwritten six six you have six total Pages toal pages hold on I think you should have eight let me see one of the pages that's in our possession is a blank page that's uh looks to be a photo copy of a hand just Loosely let the record let the record reflect I'll just go through what the court has and you tell me if I'm missing something okay so I have October dated October uh 25th it seems to be your title page uh where it says regarding City of Taylor versus Eric Martin and it says sincerely Eric Martin in red this is your opening first page and then I have the motion heading page based on the attached law that is uh in demand it is demanded that to take judicial notice of okay and so those are the two front pages then I have pages of legal argum I just PES there's two handwritten and then there's one two so I have page 49 of 88 page 51 of 88 P 53 of 88 number P that way there number but just I'm just want to make sure these are the numbers that I'm supposed to have 49 of 88 51 of 88 wait wait where's 50 4 53 of 88 and 55 of 88 49 51 I I didn't file it I didn't give it to myself have 49 hold let me me look at let me see 49 50 51 5 I have a working theory on this your honor I have PES I have pages that have the court stamp every other page my suspicion is this was double-sided did you write that were these printed double-sided no I didn't I didn't send them double sided so may I approach the judge with if you could just take page 50 because I don't have 50 I don't have 52 you're on alert the record reflect I'm approaching with the entire motion Mr GRE judge just looking from here it looks like yours are double-sided oh yes see mine are second okay so that's motion all right so yeah I got 50 on the back so I guess you did print it double-sided or something sorry the interruption sort of looked good call good pick up but the record reflected that also violates the uh Michigan court rules with regard to pleadings but in Ino per state out take it in the most favorable to the not to the improper defendant so all right so Mr greo do you have a copy of this motion I do okay you do all right so Mr Martin go ahead with your motion yeah so with this motion um some of basically what it what's already said in here is uh the driver's license okay the US con start article one section 10 the states prohibit from granting titles of Mobility driver's license is a title of nobility the special privileges for so-called drivers and is prohibited okay so do drivers get the nomenclature of King Duke um Duchess uh Governor but what what specific nobility titles are given to people who are drivers as it say like like I put in here it's um it's a privilege granted to a certain right here a title nobility is defined as to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted objection to a title nobility rises from the special privileges that attach to the title rather than to the title itself words and phrases volume P day page 40 a driver's license is a privilege which is granted by the state Corporation sir I am going to say you're not mumble have to speak up because it's hard to hear I can barely hear you and I know that sanck is going to have a hard time trying to make a record of this yeah just um the title of nobility is defined as to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted objection to a title of nobility rises from the special privileges that attach to the title rather than to the title itself um words and phrases volume 88 page 40 a driver's license is a privilege which is granted by the state let's a lot of argument to say here but basically sum up like I said the driver L title nobility it's special privileges granted to so-called drivers certain select group of people and US Constitution Article 1 Section 10 prohibits the state from granting titles and libility Mr Greco yes very briefly your honor the argument that he's asserting with regard to this app applicability to Driver's Licenses has no applicability whatsoever as the court is aware being a constitutional historian and an American uh that the titles of nobility was a big deal at the time of the founding of our country with respect to nobility titles such as that you described as king doke things that would be um granted to somebody just by either right or granted certain rights um by that that have no application whatsoever to a state issuing a driver's license for those that are able to um obtain one in the state has no applicability so I will note that the Oxford dictionary defines nobility as the quality of being Noble in character that's one two the quality of belonging to the aristocracy Arcy so like Mr grco said that's like you're a monarchy or whatever your setup is like in England that kind of thing Duke Duchess all that good Stu so contrary to Roger Miller and the fact that there are is anybody who's a King of the Road um it's not true there is no nobility that comes along with well driver's license when they use privilege uh to talk about privilege that is in opposed to a right you can either have something that's a right or you can have something that's a privilege and a privilege is something that can be regulated for the safety health safety and Welfare of all citizens like I said you keep talking about a right to travel you got a right to travel you know what you can walk anywhere you want to but if you're going to use something that can hurt somebody else that needs to be regulated such as uh a plane you can't just go and buy your own helicopter and just you know what I'm going to I'm tired of all the traffic jams I'm just going to fly my helicopter from my house backyard land it on top of the courthouse and then I'm going to just you know Park here you know what you can't do that without a pilot's license why because you could literally kill people like if you fall out of the sky so there's a reason people cars can be kill people it's no different than why why you have to have a a permit for uh certain uh weapons we have a right to and that's the clear right to keep bare arms but you still have to have certain weapons uh you have to have a permit for those things and you know so there's there's regulations that go along with that for the health safety and Welfare and giving a driver's license is because we want to make sure the state wants to make sure that anybody who's driving has the basic knowledge and understanding of what it takes to drive safely so that it's going to be for everybody uh for everybody's benefit so um with regard to the violation um there there's been no deprivation of your constitutional rights and there's been no violation the Constitution and the fact that you need to have a driver's license is something that has been ruled upon by the Michigan by the Michigan Supreme Court by the United States Supreme Court and the right to travel does not supersede your ability to need a driver's license you can travel all you want to like I said once before you can walk yourself all the way from could Forest Gump from here to across the country and all the way back but you got to do it by walking maybe even riding a bike or something that doesn't require a license but for licenses certain things need licenses there's a reason for it and all of those have been hundreds of cases that say yeah so for those reasons your motion is denied so now let's begin by bringing in the jury I object to that I like to respond to something that you there's nothing to respond to I've made my motion on I made my ruling on your motion and your motion is denied you want to appeal you can appeal it to the Circuit Court but that's between all so that all provide notice willing all all the issues [Music] that's my emotions and demands B not all right so I have um I was big but back in the 80 80s I was bigger than big yeah I know bigger bigger than shares implants and thanks for hanging out with us unfactored frauds make sure you hit the Thumbs Up Button you're subscribed and ring that Bell for notifications so next time I premere a video you can be in the live chat with everyone else and leave a comment in the comment section tell me what you think and a huge thank you to all of our facts or frauds channel members [Music] and if you're still hanging out thank you I appreciate you all make sure you hit that Thumbs Up Button you're subscribed and leave a comment in the comment section tell me what you think until next time I'll see you soon [Music]